Bike Helmets - split off from City Walkability

[James Brown]

Where I live, it's only a ten minute walk to the shops. But in this climate, a ten minute walk is pretty arduous for nine months of the year.

Riding a bile might be OK, if the law didn't mandate the pointless wearing of an esky on my head.

But until they have footpaths and/or bike lanes with air conditioning, I will be taking my car.

Helmets are pointless?

 

[bilby]

Where I live, it's only a ten minute walk to the shops. But in this climate, a ten minute walk is pretty arduous for nine months of the year.

Riding a bile might be OK, if the law didn't mandate the pointless wearing of an esky on my head.

But until they have footpaths and/or bike lanes with air conditioning, I will be taking my car.

Helmets are pointless?

Given that they have a net negative effect on safety, I am going to go with 'yes'.

They're probably a net benefit for children. But adults rarely fall from their bicycles unless in collision with a motor vehicle, and a helmet is not particularly beneficial in such collisions - a non fatal collision usually results in wounds other than head wounds, and a fatal collision is likely fatal regardless of wearing a bike helmet, as such helmets are not particularly robust.

The wearer does, however, feel less vulnerable and is therefore likely to take more risks.

There's good evidence that the net benefit of cycle helmets for adults is slightly negative with regards to preventing trauma.

The overall health effects are even worse, when you take into account the loss of exercise due to helmet laws discouraging bike use.

Bike helmets are pointless; Laws mandating their use are (on average) harmful to health.

 

[Toni]

You know what we call motorcyclists and urban bicyclists who do not wear helmets when they are on the roads?

Organ donors.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Where I live, it's only a ten minute walk to the shops. But in this climate, a ten minute walk is pretty arduous for nine months of the year.

Riding a bile might be OK, if the law didn't mandate the pointless wearing of an esky on my head.

But until they have footpaths and/or bike lanes with air conditioning, I will be taking my car.

Helmets are pointless?

Given that they have a net negative effect on safety, I am going to go with 'yes'.

They're probably a net benefit for children. But adults rarely fall from their bicycles unless in collision with a motor vehicle, and a helmet is not particularly beneficial in such collisions - a non fatal collision usually results in wounds other than head wounds, and a fatal collision is likely fatal regardless of wearing a bike helmet, as such helmets are not particularly robust.

The wearer does, however, feel less vulnerable and is therefore likely to take more risks.

There's good evidence that the net benefit of cycle helmets for adults is slightly negative with regards to preventing trauma.

The overall health effects are even worse, when you take into account the loss of exercise due to helmet laws discouraging bike use.

Bike helmets are pointless; Laws mandating their use are (on average) harmful to health.

A few years back there is a thread about helmets. Then, reading at helmets.org and some of it's various links, I decided I would stop using bicycle helmets on bike paths through wooded areas that are separated from road traffic but wear them traveling on the road. My main reason is head injuries I am likely to suffer, if any, should I take a fall.
-Most of today's helmet designs are for style not safety. Between the pointed backsides and the many vents, one is more likely to suffer a neck injury from the pointy part dragging while the body tumbles or getting one of those many vent holes snagged by a branch, grabbing your head while your body continues to travel forward. The strap presents a similar problem in wooded areas.
-You're going to save your head above all else. You will forsake every part of your body to protect your head. Tumbling from a bike in an urban setting, one is much more likely to strike their head on something unseen while tumbling. There are just too many hard objects protruding in an urban landscape.
-Most civilized nations have had and accept bicycles as part of traffic. Only the United States and Australia are the exception where disregard for cyclists on the road is much more prevalent.

This is all anecdotal evidence I gathered from the aforementioned website. Looking at it again for the first time, I notice there is now some statistics available.

Round helmets

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The wearer does, however, feel less vulnerable and is therefore likely to take more risks.

As a former cyclist (just don't do it much anymore), generally, it is adrenaline that makes you want to take a little more of a chance, not a helmet. Because the helmet doesn't protect from road rash, one of the more likely problems of crashing. The most reckless thing I ever did on a bike was before I wore a helmet.

There's good evidence that the net benefit of cycle helmets for adults is slightly negative with regards to preventing trauma.

So much so, you didn't link any. While most adults likely don't get into accidents involving their heads, most people don't ride recklessly because "they are wearing a helmet". Cycling is one of the most exposed physical things you can do. You crash, it is going to hurt for at least a few days, even if you don't break anything.

The overall health effects are even worse, when you take into account the loss of exercise due to helmet laws discouraging bike use.

As opposed to traffic volume?

 

[bilby]

Mandatory bicycle helmet laws are neutral at best, and harmful to health at worst.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Mandatory bicycle helmet laws are neutral at best, and harmful to health at worst.

Could you please link a study that isn't quite as dubious? Thanks.

One thing I hate is when a lot of equations get used that incorporate a whole bunch variables that are fuzzier than an alpaca.

In the Netherlands, wherebicycle helmets are rare, 27.5% of bicyclists admittedto hospital have head injuries (23) suggesting π =0.275 providing π is defined as the probability of ahead injury in an accident necessitating a hospitalvisit.

{snip text about Australia having a similar number}

Hence π = 0.275 appears reasonable.

I know, I know, math is hard... but this isn't math, this is number fucking.

Denmark and Italy are shown having the same helmet rate, yet Italy's death rate is nearly 5 times that of Denmark, and this is despite Denmark having more than an 8 times greater "cycling rate". That the study doesn't appear to address this minor discrepancy really exposes how little the study can be relied upon. The only way to really do this is to compare a nation's number before and after helmet laws are passed. This study is taking apples, oranges, and watermelon, tossing them into a blender, pouring out the concoction and saying "Conclusion!"

I'm willing to accept helmets cause death, but that study doesn't provide us with a conclusion that is worth much.

 

[bilby]

Mandatory bicycle helmet laws are neutral at best, and harmful to health at worst.

Could you please link a study that isn't quite as dubious? Thanks.

One thing I hate is when a lot of equations get used that incorporate a whole bunch variables that are fuzzier than an alpaca.

In the Netherlands, wherebicycle helmets are rare, 27.5% of bicyclists admittedto hospital have head injuries (23) suggesting π =0.275 providing π is defined as the probability of ahead injury in an accident necessitating a hospitalvisit.

{snip text about Australia having a similar number}

Hence π = 0.275 appears reasonable.

I know, I know, math is hard... but this isn't math, this is number fucking.

Denmark and Italy are shown having the same helmet rate, yet Italy's death rate is nearly 5 times that of Denmark, and this is despite Denmark having more than an 8 times greater "cycling rate". That the study doesn't appear to address this minor discrepancy really exposes how little the study can be relied upon. The only way to really do this is to compare a nation's number before and after helmet laws are passed. This study is taking apples, oranges, and watermelon, tossing them into a blender, pouring out the concoction and saying "Conclusion!"

I'm willing to accept helmets cause death, but that study doesn't provide us with a conclusion that is worth much.

I'm really not that concerned - the question at hand is 'are helmets sufficiently effective as to make it reasonable to force adults to wear them, even if they don't want to, whenever they ride a bicycle?'

I feel that the law shouldn't get involved at all in adult decisions, unless there is clear and unequivocal evidence of a significant benefit from the law.

That study suggests that it's a pretty marginal call - it is at best 'not proven', which IMO means the legislators should butt out. There might be some justification for funding the occasional PSA saying 'bike helmets are a good idea'. But the burden of proof should be on the legislators to show a need for a law, not on the public to show that it is unnecessary.

So until and unless you have some really impressive and clear cut evidence that mandating bike helmets saves significant numbers of people from death or serious injury, that study is more than sufficient to provide enough doubt to justify letting adults decide for themselves whether to use them or not.

It's not like the injuries or deaths are going to be inflicted on passers-by - only the cyclist himself gets any benefit from a helmet (if helmets are, in fact, effective).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I take back what I said about number fucking. I’m changing to it matherbation.

I’m happy you seem to think that your position isn’t harmed by your link. We can agree that it doesn’t hurt position. Kudos!

 

[bilby]

I take back what I said about number fucking. I’m changing to it matherbation.

I’m happy you seem to think that your position isn’t harmed by your link. We can agree that it doesn’t hurt position. Kudos!

My point is that your opposing position is the one that bears the burden of evidence, and you have provided none at all, which is rather less than I have - even if you dislike the evidence I have presented.

Even if you rate that paper's value at zero, it still leaves the scores even - which means legislation is unacceptable.

But at this point it seems like you are more interested in supporting your quasi-religious belif in mandatory helmet laws than you are in a discussion of them, so frankly I just don't care anymore. believe whatever you like - but don't lobby for your beliefs to be enshrined in laws that I am supposed to obey.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That’s disingenuous. You provided something that you thought defended your opinion. You can’t just say, well it doesn’t matter my reference was shit. You need to defend your claim.

All I did originally was ask for a reference to you post’s claim. As I said, I can buy the claim if the argument is sound. Wouldn’t be the first such regulation had opposite the intended results.

 

[bilby]

That’s disingenuous. You provided something that you thought defended your opinion. You can’t just say, well it doesn’t matter my reference was shit. You need to defend your claim.

Actually, I don't. I no longer care whether or not you agree with me, and I owe you nothing.

Die wrong, it won't hurt me at all.

All I did originally was ask for a reference to you post’s claim. As I said, I can buy the claim if the argument is sound. Wouldn’t be the first such regulation had opposite the intended results.

Well if you want to know, Google it. Because I no longer care.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looks like somebody ate Bilby’s dingo.

 

[ronburgundy]

Where I live, it's only a ten minute walk to the shops. But in this climate, a ten minute walk is pretty arduous for nine months of the year.

Riding a bile might be OK, if the law didn't mandate the pointless wearing of an esky on my head.

But until they have footpaths and/or bike lanes with air conditioning, I will be taking my car.

Helmets are pointless?

Given that they have a net negative effect on safety, I am going to go with 'yes'.

They're probably a net benefit for children. But adults rarely fall from their bicycles unless in collision with a motor vehicle, and a helmet is not particularly beneficial in such collisions - a non fatal collision usually results in wounds other than head wounds, and a fatal collision is likely fatal regardless of wearing a bike helmet, as such helmets are not particularly robust.

The wearer does, however, feel less vulnerable and is therefore likely to take more risks.

There's good evidence that the net benefit of cycle helmets for adults is slightly negative with regards to preventing trauma.

The overall health effects are even worse, when you take into account the loss of exercise due to helmet laws discouraging bike use.

Bike helmets are pointless; Laws mandating their use are (on average) harmful to health.

The data disagrees with you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29677686

[P]"A 2018 meta-analysis has been conducted of the effects of bicycle helmets on serious head injury and other injuries among crash involved cyclists. 179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989-2017 are included in the meta-analysis. The use of bicycle helmets was found to reduce head injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34%. Bicycle helmets were not found to have any statistically significant effect on cervical spine injury. There is no indication that the results from bicycle helmet studies are affected by a lack of control for confounding variables, time trend bias or publication bias."[/P]


Also, "In-depth analysis of 71 fatal bicycle crashes in Norway in 2005–2012 in which a cyclist was killed, showed that 54% of unhelmeted cyclists (65% of cyclists had been unhelmeted) most likely would have survived the crash if they had worn a helmet (Statens vegvesen, 2014)."

Note that this meta-analysis controls for something that statistical claims of "negative effects" of helmets usually do not, namely the fact that riders who wear helmets tend to ride more often for more miles and thus have more opportunity for injury.

 

[bilby]

Given that they have a net negative effect on safety, I am going to go with 'yes'.

They're probably a net benefit for children. But adults rarely fall from their bicycles unless in collision with a motor vehicle, and a helmet is not particularly beneficial in such collisions - a non fatal collision usually results in wounds other than head wounds, and a fatal collision is likely fatal regardless of wearing a bike helmet, as such helmets are not particularly robust.

The wearer does, however, feel less vulnerable and is therefore likely to take more risks.

There's good evidence that the net benefit of cycle helmets for adults is slightly negative with regards to preventing trauma.

The overall health effects are even worse, when you take into account the loss of exercise due to helmet laws discouraging bike use.

Bike helmets are pointless; Laws mandating their use are (on average) harmful to health.

The data disagrees with you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29677686

[P]"A 2018 meta-analysis has been conducted of the effects of bicycle helmets on serious head injury and other injuries among crash involved cyclists. 179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989-2017 are included in the meta-analysis. The use of bicycle helmets was found to reduce head injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34%. Bicycle helmets were not found to have any statistically significant effect on cervical spine injury. There is no indication that the results from bicycle helmet studies are affected by a lack of control for confounding variables, time trend bias or publication bias."[/P]


Also, "In-depth analysis of 71 fatal bicycle crashes in Norway in 2005–2012 in which a cyclist was killed, showed that 54% of unhelmeted cyclists (65% of cyclists had been unhelmeted) most likely would have survived the crash if they had worn a helmet (Statens vegvesen, 2014)."

Note that this meta-analysis controls for something that statistical claims of "negative effects" of helmets usually do not, namely the fact that riders who wear helmets tend to ride more often for more miles and thus have more opportunity for injury.

Note that this study does NOT control for the negative effects of people deciding not to ride at all, and thereby not getting the exercise that could have positively impacted their health.

Looking at injured cyclists tells you nothing about the harm to non-cyclists due to a sedentary lifestyle.

You data supports encouraging people to wear a helmet; it doesn't support MANDATING that they either wear one, or not ride a bicycle at all.

Note that I am NOT arguing that people shouldn't wear helmets; I am arguing that adults shouldn't be REQUIRED to wear helmets.

 

[Toni]

I think that they must make skulls thicker and harder in Australia. Must be all that constant sunshine and good weather.

(JK---mostly.)

I'm not certain whether the differences pertain to types of biking and where people tend to bike. As a kid, we rode bikes a lot on small town streets and also (for me) country roads where there really was faster albeit scant traffic. No one commuted to work in cities on bicycles as they do now. The US tends to be far different than Europe in terms of roadways, and walkability and commute times and commuting expectations. Outside of the east coast and Chicago, few people commute anywhere on trains, for example. Minneapolis/St. Paul and doubtless other cities are just beginning light rail. And also making bicycling more possible for commuters/urban dwellers.

Aside from speed --which is a big deal---I don't see how the need for helmets is different for bicyclers and motorcyclers. Both must contend with motor vehicles which are much larger and faster and more dangerous to them in any collision than they are. Motorcyclists in my area also must contend with deer popping up around corners or out of ditches in more wooded areas or also in farmland. My area is positively infested. I've hit two myself and cannot begin to estimate the number of serious close calls I've had with others over the past dozen years or so alone. Turkeys are also sometimes an issue and very occasionally, something like a coyote is an issue and even more rare in my part of my state, a bear, although these and other larger animals are more of an issue in other regions of my state.

A friend who motorcycles tells me that deer are nearly as big a hazard as are drivers who don't watch for motorcyclists. She's known people who were killed (no helmets) in deer/motorcycle collisions. My collisions resulted in several thousand dollars damage/per plus swearing but no injury to myself. Although, in that particular area, hitting or swerving to avoid hitting a deer could have easily been fatal to me. Lots of drop offs down some pretty steep banks. All of the motorcyclist deaths that I can remember in my area (and there are a few every season) involved riders with no helmets/larger vehicles.

 

[ronburgundy]

Given that they have a net negative effect on safety, I am going to go with 'yes'.

They're probably a net benefit for children. But adults rarely fall from their bicycles unless in collision with a motor vehicle, and a helmet is not particularly beneficial in such collisions - a non fatal collision usually results in wounds other than head wounds, and a fatal collision is likely fatal regardless of wearing a bike helmet, as such helmets are not particularly robust.

The wearer does, however, feel less vulnerable and is therefore likely to take more risks.

There's good evidence that the net benefit of cycle helmets for adults is slightly negative with regards to preventing trauma.

The overall health effects are even worse, when you take into account the loss of exercise due to helmet laws discouraging bike use.

Bike helmets are pointless; Laws mandating their use are (on average) harmful to health.

The data disagrees with you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29677686

[P]"A 2018 meta-analysis has been conducted of the effects of bicycle helmets on serious head injury and other injuries among crash involved cyclists. 179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989-2017 are included in the meta-analysis. The use of bicycle helmets was found to reduce head injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34%. Bicycle helmets were not found to have any statistically significant effect on cervical spine injury. There is no indication that the results from bicycle helmet studies are affected by a lack of control for confounding variables, time trend bias or publication bias."[/P]


Also, "In-depth analysis of 71 fatal bicycle crashes in Norway in 2005–2012 in which a cyclist was killed, showed that 54% of unhelmeted cyclists (65% of cyclists had been unhelmeted) most likely would have survived the crash if they had worn a helmet (Statens vegvesen, 2014)."

Note that this meta-analysis controls for something that statistical claims of "negative effects" of helmets usually do not, namely the fact that riders who wear helmets tend to ride more often for more miles and thus have more opportunity for injury.

Note that this study does NOT control for the negative effects of people deciding not to ride at all, and thereby not getting the exercise that could have positively impacted their health

Looking at injured cyclists tells you nothing about the harm to non-cyclists due to a sedentary lifestyle.

You data supports encouraging people to wear a helmet; it doesn't support MANDATING that they either wear one, or not ride a bicycle at all.

Note that I am NOT arguing that people shouldn't wear helmets; I am arguing that adults shouldn't be REQUIRED to wear helmets.

Note that the articles you cite don't measure any of those variables either. Rather they just make baseless assumptions that people won't ride and will not get any other form of exercise instead. Those articles don't use actual empirical data, but rather just create an algorithm based on untested assumptions.

 

[bilby]

Note that this study does NOT control for the negative effects of people deciding not to ride at all, and thereby not getting the exercise that could have positively impacted their health

Looking at injured cyclists tells you nothing about the harm to non-cyclists due to a sedentary lifestyle.

You data supports encouraging people to wear a helmet; it doesn't support MANDATING that they either wear one, or not ride a bicycle at all.

Note that I am NOT arguing that people shouldn't wear helmets; I am arguing that adults shouldn't be REQUIRED to wear helmets.

Note that the articles you cite don't measure any of those variables either. Rather they just make baseless assumptions that people won't ride and will not get any other form of exercise instead. Those articles don't use actual empirical data, but rather just create an algorithm based on untested assumptions.

Sure. But I don't bear the burden of proof here.

I am not arguing that helmets should be banned; I am arguing that they should be OPTIONAL. That's the default position that a legislature should take in any case where the evidence is not decisive.

If you want to wear a helmet, that's entirely your call. But if you want to require me to wear one, or risk a fine, you need a bloody good reason to impose upon me in that way - and I do NOT need to show that my choice is certain (or even highly likely) to be harmless; I only need to show that your choice isn't demonstrated to be unequivocally beneficial.

Applying this requirement to legislation is called 'freedom', and I quite like it, so you can expect pushback if you try to take it from me without hard evidence that it is harmful to me or, through my freely chosen actions, to society, to do so.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Note that this study does NOT control for the negative effects of people deciding not to ride at all, and thereby not getting the exercise that could have positively impacted their health

Looking at injured cyclists tells you nothing about the harm to non-cyclists due to a sedentary lifestyle.

You data supports encouraging people to wear a helmet; it doesn't support MANDATING that they either wear one, or not ride a bicycle at all.

Note that I am NOT arguing that people shouldn't wear helmets; I am arguing that adults shouldn't be REQUIRED to wear helmets.

Note that the articles you cite don't measure any of those variables either. Rather they just make baseless assumptions that people won't ride and will not get any other form of exercise instead. Those articles don't use actual empirical data, but rather just create an algorithm based on untested assumptions.

Sure. But I don't bear the burden of proof here.

I am not arguing that helmets should be banned; I am arguing that they should be OPTIONAL. That's the default position that a legislature should take in any case where the evidence is not decisive.

From “pointless” to “not decisive”. That seems like an improvement and the best we can hope for on the Internet.

 

[ronburgundy]

Note that this study does NOT control for the negative effects of people deciding not to ride at all, and thereby not getting the exercise that could have positively impacted their health

Looking at injured cyclists tells you nothing about the harm to non-cyclists due to a sedentary lifestyle.

You data supports encouraging people to wear a helmet; it doesn't support MANDATING that they either wear one, or not ride a bicycle at all.

Note that I am NOT arguing that people shouldn't wear helmets; I am arguing that adults shouldn't be REQUIRED to wear helmets.

Note that the articles you cite don't measure any of those variables either. Rather they just make baseless assumptions that people won't ride and will not get any other form of exercise instead. Those articles don't use actual empirical data, but rather just create an algorithm based on untested assumptions.

Sure. But I don't bear the burden of proof here.

You repeatedly claimed that helmets cause harm. You bear the 100% of the burden in supporting that claim. Without doing so, your posts amount to nothing other than "I don't want to wear a helmet." That's fine you feel that way but its not useful to any meaningful discussion.

I presented a recent met-analysis of all relevant research on the effect of helmets to injuries, which showed a large reduction in head injuries and fatalities and none of the negative effects on neck and spine injuries that is often claimed by helmet opponents.

I am not arguing that helmets should be banned; I am arguing that they should be OPTIONAL. That's the default position that a legislature should take in any case where the evidence is not decisive.
.

I didn't take a position either way on whether helmets should be mandatory. I merely said that your assertion that helmets do no good is refuted by the available evidence. The effects of helmets and the effects of helmet laws are two different things. You tried to argue against the latter by making incorrect claims about the former.

The sound argument against making them mandatory is that the harm of not wearing one is to the rider themselves, not pretending there is no reduced harm when wearing one. That forces proponents of such laws to argue that the justification is the cost of the injuries to the public. That's where counter arguments about indirect costs of mandatory helmets to general public health come in, but those making that argument (and I think it's a reasonable one) do have a burden to show that cost. Once you include effects of a law on people's choices, there are an infinite # of possible indirect effects of any legislation, only a tiny fraction of which actually occur. So, it's unreasonable to demand that every possible negative indirect effect be shown not to exist prior to passing a law.
If action X is shown to cause harm to the public, that's grounds to restrict that action. Personal freedom ends when it harms others. If people want to claim that the restriction will cause more harm to the public than the action itself, they carry the burden to show that.

BTW, there does appear to be some actual evidence about ridership effects. This study looked at 20 year effects of mandatory helmets compared against control cities. They found a 5% decrease in amount of bike riding. They correctly note that only a portion of this 5% would lead to lower physical activity due to no replacement activity and that this small reduction is probably not enough to outweigh the reduction in serious head injuries. However, they also make the good point that other societal benefits of bike riding are negatively impacted by helmet laws, including adolescent independence, and reduced driving and it's impacts.